Atheism and nihilism

[2PhiloVoid]

What argument is that? What a non-sequitur is?

Nope. The equivocation is in thinking that the application of Plato's Socratic moral dilemma in Euthyphro applies analogously to the biblical concept of God.

IT DOES NOT!

 

[Moral Orel]

Nope. The equivocation is in thinking that the application of Plato's Socratic moral dilemma in Euthyphro applies analogously to the biblical concept of God.

IT DOES NOT!

Ahh, then you haven't been reading anything I've written... again. I didn't lay that argument out, I criticized Steve's responses to the dilemma. What Steve responded with is in fact a non-sequitur. Do you have anything to say about what I've actually said, or did you just want to talk to yourself?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahh, then you haven't been reading anything I've written... again. I didn't lay that argument out, I criticized Steve's responses to the dilemma. What Steve responded with is in fact a non-sequitur. Do you have anything to say about what I've actually said, or did you just want to talk to yourself?

I'll be glad to take a look at what you've said since I'm not exactly looking to live in an echo-chamber, despite what some folks might think. Which posts are you referring to specifically and I'll see if I agree or disagree with either, or both, you and Steve?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'll be glad to take a look at what you've said since I'm not exactly looking to live in an echo-chamber, despite what some folks might think. Which posts are you referring to specifically and I'll see if I agree or disagree with either, or both, you and Steve?

I've only made a couple in this thread. Here they are:

The question isn't "Why does God will something?" The question is "Why is something good?"

So something is good because God is good? That's a non-sequitur.

So without even referencing the dilemma, tell me why something is good.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've only made a couple in this thread. Here they are:




So without even referencing the dilemma, tell me why something is good.

That's part of MY POINT, too, Morel Orel. Without the schematic conceptual context being taken into account.................neither you nor I can engage the concept of "the Good" as "it is" in relation to the overarching contexts in which it is embedded.

So, IF Steve is promoting Divine Command Theory, then I won't say that I will sign on the dotted line for that; but IF we also attempt to determine "the Good" without or apart from the biblical concept of God as its author, then we're not citing the same identical concept of "the Good." We're talking about some other ontological concept of "the Good," a separate one that DOESN'T have anything to do with the biblical God.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's part of MY POINT, too, Morel Orel. Without the schematic conceptual context being taken into account.................neither you nor I can engage the concept of "the Good" as "it is" in relation to the overarching contexts in which it is embedded.

So, IF Steve is promoting Divine Command Theory, then I won't say that I will sign on the dotted line for that; but IF we also attempt to determine "the Good" without or apart from the biblical concept of God as its author, then we're not citing the same identical concept of "the Good." We're talking about some other ontological concept of "the Good," a separate one that DOESN'T have anything to do with the biblical God.

So tell me why something is good. I don't care how you do it. I'm curious. I haven't made any arguments except with the way Steve has presented his.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So tell me why something is good. I don't care how you do it. I'm curious. I haven't made any arguments except with the way Steve has presented his.

The 'how' you do it will depend upon the type, weight, and context of your presuppositions.................. because not all roads lead to Rome.

 

[durangodawood]

The 'how' you do it will depend upon the type, weight, and context of your presuppositions.................. because not all roads lead to Rome.

Please! Just tell him what makes something "good" in your opinion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please! Just tell him what makes something "good" in your opinion.

Good in what regard? Do you want me to say something like "I think.....Happy, Shiny People is the Good"?

 

[durangodawood]

Good in what regard? Do you want me to say something like "I think.....Happy, Shiny People is the Good"?

Morally good. What makes a behavior morally correct?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Morally good. What makes a behavior morally correct?

Are we talking about an utterly existential state of affairs, or a biblical one, or even a pagan one?

 

[Kaon]

Are we talking about an utterly existential state of affairs, or a biblical one, or even a pagan one?

In general (appropriate for the audience).

For example, I would personally argue that no human is good because we do not do good things 100% of the time. Animals, according to us, do not qualify for good/evil because they are ignorant of "good/evil".

The Most High is the only entity (in my opinion) that can be "good".

Now, of course humans like to qualify things, but I would still say "goodness" for a human is almost impossible even without a god. Why? Simply because 1) we don't all agree on what is good, and 2) we would have to do that "good" thing 100% of the time to be considered good.

Law is considered something good to humans, but it is actually axiomatic and culturally dependent. One society says murder is bad, while the other extols ritual sacrifice: which is good? Why? I think this is the question being asked.

 

[durangodawood]

Are we talking about an utterly existential state of affairs, or a biblical one, or even a pagan one?

I'm talking about the state of affairs that you think prevails. What do you think makes an action morally good (or bad)?

 

[Strathos]

I wish I understood how this related to my initial request, but I'm at a loss here.

Christians don't generally commit suicide or give away their livelihood because it would prevent them from winning souls for Christ.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No demographic "generally" commits suicide.

 

[stevevw]

I didnt say its felt objectively. Feelings are internal by definition.

Yet you use words like happiness, satisfaction, misery which are all feelings. We cannot base morality on feelings as feelings are subjective.

I'm saying satisfaction can be observed objectively. We can see when people are happy vs miserable. Just like how we can tell an abused dog is miserable compared to one in loving care.

But who said happiness and misery equate to moral right and wrong.

Yes, there's more subtleties at play in humans, but the basic idea is the same.

And it is these variations that make it hard to equate morality to pleasure and pain or happiness and misery. What one person sees as being OK to make one happy/sad or pleasure/pain another view as being wrong.

I named a number of situations where the line is blurred. I can name many more if you want. What about the environmental damage which is causing misery for many yet many others see it as OK as we need to maintain economic stability. It just doesn't work. Whenever someone tries to establish some objective basis someone else can easily justify or rationalize a situation that contradicts it as being OK.

If you want to use science as a basis for morality then you have to include the science that shows contradictory evidence that morality based on feelings like empathy are a bad basis. It has been shown that empathy can be discriminating, harmful and callous because people personalize it and choose who deserves empathy or not depending on what they view and feel is worthy.

Recent investigations from social and affective neuroscience have documented that the neural network implicated in empathy for the pain of others is either strengthened or weakened by interpersonal variables, implicit attitudes, and group preferences.
Friends or foes: Is empathy necessary for moral behavior?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm talking about the state of affairs that you think prevails. What do you think makes an action morally good (or bad)?

That really is contingent upon a whole host of factors, isn't it? I suppose I could make an overly general statement about what I think is "morally good," but it wouldn't REALLY tease out the specific situations that we all have to navigate through each day we live our lives, especially as we move in a not so hospitable world environment.

One could say that human survival is generally good, as is human well-being, but this will depend on who is asserting this overly general statement, as well as why they do so and how they propose it should be done. General ethical principles all by themselves don't necessarily reflect moral realities or prescribe to us what moral reality we are all engaged in.

As a Christian, I'm going to say that what is "Good" is that which comports with God's own Being, and His Design and/or intention for human existence. I don't expect that what God thinks (or knows) is good will be easily understood or administered by the human mind without complication. In sum, my own idea of the Good won't necessarily, or naturally, be what God fully knows to be 'Good.' They will be two different concepts, even if there will be some overlap.

 

[Moral Orel]

The 'how' you do it will depend upon the type, weight, and context of your presuppositions.................. because not all roads lead to Rome.

It's your show, buddy. I'm curious why something is good from your perspective. So you tell me what the presuppositions are.

 

[Moral Orel]

Christians don't generally commit suicide or give away their livelihood because it would prevent them from winning souls for Christ.

How would giving away your livelihood prevent you from winning souls? Isn't that what a bunch of the apostles did?

 

[Kylie]

No "good is God. It isn't separate from God. God isn't picking some abstract "good" and saying this is what good is. God is the "good" and has been always. No one else made Him good, He has just always been the "good". His nature is good. The problem is that people try to put a modernistic and human understanding of good onto God. Yet if we are to take God as described by the Christian God then He is as John mentions the Logos of good.

As Christians understand God, his innate nature is morality itself. Furthermore, God is eternal and did not create himself, so he could not have created morality. God appeals to his uncreated and eternal nature to find morality and then reveals it to the world. He cannot act in a way that opposes that morality, nor can it be created or changed.
Both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma are resolved by realizing God as a self-evident, metaphysically necessary being.
Why the Christian Apologetic to the Euthyphro Dilemma Falls Short. : DebateAChristian

Like I said. You are redefining the words so God and Good mean the same thing.